01 · 2 legs
Safe
- Chesterfield to win51%
- Under 3.5 goals74%
EFL League TwoRodney Parade, Newport10°8 km/h
Läs på svenskaBetBuilders AI model prediction for Newport County vs Chesterfield (EFL League Two, Friday, 30 October 2026): Newport County win 23%, draw 26%, Chesterfield win 51%. Expected goals (xG): Newport County 1.01, Chesterfield 1.59. Most likely score: 1-1 (12%). Over 2.5 goals 48%, both teams to score 51%. Double chance: Newport County or draw 49%, Chesterfield or draw 77%. Prediction updated Friday, 23 October 2026.
18+ · Gamble responsibly · stodlinjen.se · Affiliate links
Sofia Andersson · · The model's read on the match · How the predictions work
FAKTA check: The head-to-head line is misstated. Per the facts, the 1W-0D-3L record belongs to Newport County (one win, three losses), meaning Chesterfield actually won 3 of the 4 meetings — not "1W, 0D, 3L in Chesterfield's favour."
Corrected text:
Four meetings since 2023 read 1W, 0D, 3L for Newport County — meaning Chesterfield have won three of the four meetings. That is a useful directional signal, but the sample is small and weighs less than form and expected goals. The sharper evidence has the visitors ahead: 19 points to Newport County’s 15, 21.6 xPoints to 20.1, and a substantial 1.8 xG per match against 1.2.
Newport County’s low defence & direct profile can make this awkward, particularly if they turn the game into second balls and transitions. Yet Chesterfield’s possession control carries the stronger underlying case. They concede just 0.95 xGA per match versus the hosts’ 1.2, while creating 1.59 expected goals to Newport’s 1.01. The model gives the away side a 51% win probability, against 23% for Newport and 26% for the draw. That is not a marginal preference. It is a clear Chesterfield lean.
The score distribution keeps the draw alive. 1-1 is the single most likely scoreline at 12%, ahead of 0-1 at 11% and 1-2 at 9%. Still, the aggregate picture points more toward Chesterfield finding the decisive moment than Newport matching them over 90 minutes. My most likely scoreline is 1-1 by the raw scoreline model, but the match outcome assessment is away win. That distinction matters: correct-score probabilities are fragmented, while the win market captures Chesterfield’s broader edge.
Goals are tight rather than explosive. Over 2.5 sits at 48%, so the lean is under 2.5, with both teams to score near-neutral at 51%. LeoVegas offers under 2.5 at 1.952, assessed as EV+ with the model at 52% and a 1% edge; under 3.5 at 1.38 also grades EV+, at 74% and a 1% edge. The colder number is Chesterfield away at 2.05 with LeoVegas: 51% model probability, 4% edge, and the clearest value assessment on the board.
01 · 2 legs
02 · 3 legs
03 · 4 legs
Bets where the model's probability beats what the odds imply (EV+).
| Bookmaker | 1 · Newport County | X | 2 · Chesterfield |
|---|---|---|---|
| Betsafe | 3.55 | 3.40 | EV+ 1% 1.98 |
| LeoVegas | 3.35 | 3.35 | EV+ 4% 2.05 |
| Nordicbet | 3.55 | 3.40 | EV+ 1% 1.98 |
Odds updated 26 Oct, 13:36
3.50 → 3.35
3.50 → 3.35
1.92 → 2.05
1.80 → 1.77
LeoVegas · 8 recorded price levels · 24/10/2026 → 26/10/2026 · fixed scale 5 percentage points
Head-to-head based on League Two data since 2023.
Solid line = created (xG), dashed = conceded (xGA).
Last 5 matches. Circle size = pass volume, line width = combinations between players. Attacking left to right.
The same network weighted by offensive threat (xT): circle size = threat created by the player, line width = threat of the combinations. Last 5 matches, attacking left to right.
| Performance | Newport County | Chesterfield |
|---|---|---|
| Points | 15 | 19 |
| xPoints | 20.1 | 21.6 |
| xG per match | 1.2 | 1.8 |
| xGA per match | 1.2 | 0.95 |
| xG within 8s of winning the ball | 0.17 | 0.35 |
| xGA within 8s of losing the ball | 0.22 | 0.24 |
| Playing style | Newport County | Chesterfield |
|---|---|---|
| Build-up efficiency | 0.33 | 0.32 |
| Field tilt | 0.38 | 0.7 |
| xT per match | 0.76 | 1.2 |
| xTA per match | 0.87 | 0.75 |
| Won balls, offensive half | 32 | 28 |
| Pressing intensity | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Pressing efficiency | 0.34 | 0.38 |
| Pressing efficiency, offensive half | 0.32 | 0.37 |
| Entries into the box per match | 11 | 17 |
| Entries into the box against | 12 | 8 |
| Pass completion % | 0.55 | 0.75 |
| Pass completion % under pressure | 0.55 | 0.73 |
| Passes per match | 170 | 417 |
| Passes against per match | 316 | 252 |
| Switches of play per match | 17.8 | 38.5 |
| Long balls per match | 30 | 48 |
| Set pieces | Newport County | Chesterfield |
|---|---|---|
| xG from free kicks | 0.12 | 0.01 |
| Corners per match | 4.2 | 5.9 |
| Corners against per match | 4.2 | 2.4 |
| xG per corner | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| xGA per corner against | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| First touch, offensive corners % | 0.4 | 0.44 |
| First touch, defensive corners % | 0.65 | 0.58 |
| Other | Newport County | Chesterfield |
|---|---|---|
| Throw-in control | 0.75 | 0.8 |
| The goalkeepers | Jordan Wright (Newport County) | Ryan Thomas William Boot (Chesterfield) |
|---|---|---|
| Saves | 31 | 26 |
| Save % | 69% | 62% |
| xG prevented | 37% | 53% |
| Claims | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
The model gives Chesterfield a 51% win probability. Full 1X2 picture: Newport County 23%, draw 26%, Chesterfield 51%.
The model's most likely final score is 1-1 at 12% probability.
The model rates over 2.5 goals at 48% and under at 52%.
The probability of both teams scoring is 51% according to the model.
The model expects 1.01 goals (xG) for Newport County and 1.59 for Chesterfield, 2.60 in total.
Newport County or draw (1X) 49%, Chesterfield or draw (X2) 77% and no draw (12) 74%.
The same rules as the bookmakers’ builders: legs that contradict or already follow from your slip cannot be combined — for example correct score 2–1 with under 2.5 goals. The difference is that we don’t look the rules up in a table; we compute them straight from the score matrix.

Min. insättning 100 kr. Omsättning 6× inom 60 dagar, odds från 1,80
Hämta bonus
Se ComeOns villkor
Hämta bonus
Se Hajpers villkor
Hämta bonusPredictions come from PlaymakerAI's match model and reflect the model's assessment — not betting advice. Gamble responsibly.